From: rick@gurdjian.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:37 PM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: file#SR-NASD-2003-104 Proposed NASD Rule Change re: Definition
of Branch Office
Dear Secretary:
I am a licensed insurance professional and variable products/mutual funds
salesperson. I am writing to you because the NASDs proposal to revise the
definition of branch office in Rule 3010(g)(2) will have a significant
impact on my business.
It is very possible that the financial expense and administrative burdens
that will be caused by the change in status of my office from a non-branch
location to a branch office will result in it no longer being economically
feasible to offer variable products and mutual funds to my clients. This
can only have a harmful impact on consumers since their access to these
products, which often constitute an important part of my clients overall
financial planning, will likely be reduced or eliminated.
In addition, the NASD has not addressed the disproportionate impact that
the proposal will have on limited purpose broker-dealers affiliated with
life insurance companies. The proposal will have little if any impact on
full-service broker-dealers, who typically conduct all of their activities
from offices that meet the NASDs current definition of branch offices. This
is appropriate since full-service broker-dealers conduct a full range of
securities and financial activities at these offices. Broker-dealers
affiliated with insurance companies, however, perform a much narrower
range of activities. These companies have structured their operations
based on the current definition, and they would be presented with
significant new economic and administrative costs in order to comply with
the new definition.
For these reasons, I am urging the SEC to reject the NASD proposal to
revise the definition of branch office and to keep in place the current
definition. In the alternative, the proposal should be amended to (i) waive
the filing fee for any non-branch location which becomes a branch office
as a result of the proposal, and (ii) the number of permitted transactions
in the exclusion found in section 3010(g)(2)(E) should be substantially
increased. Thank you for your consideration of my views on this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Gurdjian
311 North Winter Street
Adrian, MI 49221